Trump Administration looking to enforce the law: "public charge" requirement coming back!

To my readers who have asked me about this for years—-asked me what happened to a law already on the books—here is a glimmer of (potential) good news.
welfare office
Needless to say the No Borders Left will go insane, but frankly if the Dems do go on a warpath against the idea that immigrants shouldn’t be sucking up welfare, it will hurt them at the polls in November.
No sensible Republican or Democrat supports the importation of welfare recipients.
From Neil Munro at Breitbart (hat tip Richard @highblueridge):

Homeland defense officials are reviving enforcement of a law that is intended to bar legal migrants who cannot earn a living in the United States.

The proposed regulation would implement the existing law, which bars legal immigrants from imposing a “public charge” on Americans. However, the plan is likely to be bitterly opposed by a loose alliance of business groups and by Democrats, both of whom gain when the federal government provides taxpayer aid to migrants, legal or illegal. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Breitbart News:

The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law.

The plan was mentioned in a 2017 work-plan released by DHS, but it was highlighted Wednesday by a report in the Washington Post. The report said:

Immigrants who accept almost any form of welfare or public benefit, even popular tax deductions, could be denied legal U.S. residency under a proposal awaiting approval by the Trump administration, which is seeking to reduce the number of foreigners living in the United States.

The proposal would also require Americans who sponsor migrants to post bonds of up to $10,000, which could be used to repay taxpayers for migrants’ use of federal aid.

The plan must be approved by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and then undergo a months-long public comment and regulatory process before it becomes a large regulation. If adopted, it will replace a 1999 regulation.

Much more here.
If the requirement extended to refugees the entire refugee program would crash and that is because the primary job of the resettlement contractors is to sign incoming refugees up for their ‘services’ (aka welfare). They also help refugees find those low skilled jobs (slaughterhouse and hotel workers, etc) and show them how to supplement meager wages with welfare.
And, that idea of posting a bond makes me chuckle.
Imagine this: Catholic Charities, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians and the Jews among the refugee resettlement agencies*** could sponsor refugees and instead of being paid to place them, the non-profit NGO puts up a $10,000 bond for say each family they place with the bond money coming from private charity.
When they have to put their private money where their mouth is, we would find out very quickly that their humanitarian zeal isn’t real!
***These are the nine major federal refugee contractors presently paid millions of tax dollars to resettle refugees. There will never be reform of the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program as long as they collect federal funds and act as community organizing and political agitation groups.
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of the nine VOLAGs’ income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees, line them up with (low paying) jobs in food production and cleaning hotel rooms, and get them signed up for their services! From most recent accounting, here.